Liam Neeson: Rape, Revenge, and Race Relations

[GrandizerII]

This is why I opt out of these conversations early. 16 pages later and no one's really listening to one another or making any real progress in the conversation. It's as if people are more worried about having the last word than having a real discussion. Without naming names, some of you don't seem to be even reading what others are writing. This is all pointless. AF has spoken, most people feel the outrage wasn't justified.

16 people have voted so far. Not exactly a large enough sample size. Voting is not very well controlled as well AFAIK. Not that it matters anyway. AF can collectively say whatever it wants, whether it agrees with one position or another, but it's the voice of reason that matters, not what the majority of people says.

[bennyboy]

This is why I opt out of these conversations early. 16 pages later and no one's really listening to one another or making any real progress in the conversation. It's as if people are more worried about having the last word than having a real discussion. Without naming names, some of you don't seem to be even reading what others are writing. This is all pointless. AF has spoken, most people feel the outrage wasn't justified.

16 people have voted so far. Not exactly a large enough sample size. Voting is not very well controlled as well AFAIK. Not that it matters anyway. AF can collectively say whatever it wants, whether it agrees with one position or another, but it's the voice of reason that matters, not what the majority of people says.

It seems to me the majority are in favor of a moderate response to a comment that was a bit strange but probably not intended to project malice.

[Shell B]

AF Is a forum. It doesn't agree or disagree with anything.

[bennyboy]

AF Is a forum. It doesn't agree or disagree with anything.

No, but polls do. But I agree with Grandizer. . . 16 is such a small sample size that it doesn't mean too much.

I'd say if you went on active posters on the internet, then by far most of them are against what Neeson said, and many of those against Neeson. I don't think they should be, but that's where opinion seems to be at.

[EgoDeath]

I never claimed 16 people was an adequate "sample size." This is also not some double-blind study with a control group, etc. I'm simply saying that so far, most people don't seem to think the outrage was justified. I actually voted for "It's a bit excessive," which means I DO understand the backlash, to an extent.

The problem is, some of you guys simply want to wholly condemn Neeson and you've apparently decided that anyone who doesn't wholly condemn Neeson with you is also a closet racist, which is completely moronic and is part of what makes having conversations about these topics hard. YOU GUYS are the ones creating a rift in those of us that are part of the left. It's either buy into your dogma 100% or be deemed a racist. It's complete nonsense and I refuse to stand for it.

This conversation has made no progress in 16 pages because of the all-or-nothing attitude you guys want everyone to adopt. It's ridiculous.

[GrandizerII]

The problem is, some of you guys simply want to wholly condemn Neeson and you've apparently decided that anyone who doesn't wholly condemn Neeson with you is also a closet racist, which is completely moronic and is part of what makes having conversations about these topics hard.

Bringing up covert racism or, as some others put it, casual racism and acknowledging that many of us speak from a perspective of privilege that blinds us from seeing the struggles the unprivileged go through does make conversations about these topics hard. It doesn't mean we should stop pointing this out and instead be politically correct. If you're against PC bullshit, then let's be real and let's really talk about racism and privilege. Let's not falsely credit self-absorbed assholes like Liam (who just happens to be white man) with trying to start the conversation about racism when he himself didn't even intend it to be about racism, and when these conversations have been happening for quite a while by the people you like to speak out against.

YOU GUYS are the ones creating a rift in those of us that are part of the left. It's either buy into your dogma 100% or be deemed a racist. It's complete nonsense and I refuse to stand for it.

I understand people feel this way when they are blinded by their own privilege. They think they're the heroes who can do no wrong, and that there must be something wrong with the way of thinking of "the others".

This conversation has made no progress in 16 pages because of the all-or-nothing attitude you guys want everyone to adopt. It's ridiculous.

This conversation has made no progress because you're not really listening to what some of us are saying. It's unfortunate, but expected.

[Athene]

I never claimed 16 people was an adequate "sample size." This is also not some double-blind study with a control group, etc. I'm simply saying that so far, most people don't seem to think the outrage was justified. I actually voted for "It's a bit excessive," which means I DO understand the backlash, to an extent.

The problem is, some of you guys simply want to wholly condemn Neeson and you've apparently decided that anyone who doesn't wholly condemn Neeson with you is also a closet racist, which is completely moronic and is part of what makes having conversations about these topics hard. YOU GUYS are the ones creating a rift in those of us that are part of the left. It's either buy into your dogma 100% or be deemed a racist. It's complete nonsense and I refuse to stand for it.  

This conversation has made no progress in 16 pages because of the all-or-nothing attitude you guys want everyone to adopt. It's ridiculous.

I actually haven't seen this all-or-nothing condemnation thing you speak of in this thread; at least, not from those who feel the backlash was justified a degree. 
I certainly made no calls that EVERYONE must boycott NEESON now or they are a racist, white supremacist. In fact, I made it quite clear that that is not my view at all. However I DID suggest that the odd folks who go into attack mode any such subjects are brought up and IMMEDIATELY castigate others who vocalize that they DO happen to perceive the man as racist are vile, SJWs who are "ruining everything", are indeed quite suspect themselves.

I believe I used the term "hit dogs will holler". I stand by that personal assessment. 

It is indeed my opinion.

[Cecelia]

When the issue becomes too political rationality goes out the window. Liam Neeson is basically admitting to being a normal male in a culture where cracking heads has been a pretty common practice. Do you think that some Ulster heads wouldn't be randomly cracked in response to a nice Catholic girl being assaulted by a Protestant perp?

So Neeson spent a week being an angry irrational racist because he was outraged at the crime that had been committed against someone that he deeply cared about, and the only thing that he knew about the perpetrator was that they were black, and he just wanted to lash out at anyone who generally matched that description. Yeah, that's totally normal. Why the hell would we pretend that it's not? He recognized what a nasty rabbit hole he was going to go down, and he stepped back from it like your average sane person.

But it's a politically super-charged issue, so bring on the sanctimonious libtards.

If it's totally normal, why don't you see people saying this about... white people? 

"A white man raped a woman today."

Nobody who cares or loves about that person immediately thinks "I'm going to go beat the SHIT out of the first white person I see!  They generally match the description!"

It's 100% irrational and 100% racist.  Nobody hears their loved one was raped or murdered by a man with a beard, and then wants to go and beat up and/or kill the first person with a beard they see.  Beating up innocent people is NOT rational or normal.

[Yonadav]

When the issue becomes too political rationality goes out the window. Liam Neeson is basically admitting to being a normal male in a culture where cracking heads has been a pretty common practice. Do you think that some Ulster heads wouldn't be randomly cracked in response to a nice Catholic girl being assaulted by a Protestant perp?

So Neeson spent a week being an angry irrational racist because he was outraged at the crime that had been committed against someone that he deeply cared about, and the only thing that he knew about the perpetrator was that they were black, and he just wanted to lash out at anyone who generally matched that description. Yeah, that's totally normal. Why the hell would we pretend that it's not? He recognized what a nasty rabbit hole he was going to go down, and he stepped back from it like your average sane person.

But it's a politically super-charged issue, so bring on the sanctimonious libtards.

If it's totally normal, why don't you see people saying this about... white people? 

"A white man raped a woman today."

Nobody who cares or loves about that person immediately thinks "I'm going to go beat the SHIT out of the first white person I see!  They generally match the description!"

It's 100% irrational and 100% racist.  Nobody hears their loved one was raped or murdered by a man with a beard, and then wants to go and beat up and/or kill the first person with a beard they see.  Beating up innocent people is NOT rational or normal.

Wow. You totally missed the part where I pointed out that Neeson grew up in a culture where white people were attacking other white people for racist reasons all the time. And you missed the part where I said that Neeson's rage toward black people was irrational and it was racist. And if you think that no black person has ever wanted to go out and assault some random white person, you are delusional. This nasty tendency is in all of us. There are the lies that we tell to ourselves and others, and there is the truth. Neeson has tried to have an honest discussion about the truth. The truth is that we all have monsters inside of us and we should be able to talk about our experiences with them so that we can maybe learn to handle our monsters better and treat others fairly despite our inner monsters.

[The Grand Nudger]

Neeson disagrees.  He doesn't know wtf you're talking about, why anyone would link his comments to -silent word-, or why anyone would think he was a -silent word-. If you want to talk about "monsters inside of us" then that's a different discussion.

IDK, I've known people who didn't seem to have any such monsters at all. Most people I know, really. The idea that we're all monstrous or terrible in some vague way is popular, and fun to play with...plenty of good jokes to be had. I don't think it's an accurate appraisal of what we are, personally. I'd lay most human misery on apathy and opportunity, rather any monstrous sub-current. Even -silent word- largely expresses itself as apathy rather than antipathy. All the shittiness, none of the effort, lol.